Case Analysis; Dentistar

Case Analysis; Dentistar

Subscriber Termination Procedures


Dentistars has a high level of response to addressing the needs of its customers. This possibly explains the high number of customers the company has accumulated for the last few decades. Being in existence for such a long time also showcases the strengths of the company. One platform that makes these strengths visible is the subscriber termination procedure. There is a good response as customers are allowed to make calls or send in letters requesting to be terminated from the programs of the company. Phone calls and mailing requests depict the company’s commitment to offering a high level of customer attention. Dentistars also has a mechanism of ascertaining unused premiums and initial refunds. Ascertaining such refund is seen as a merit since the company proves it has the interests of the customers at heart and will only make use of those premiums that the customers have used.

On the contrary, Dentistars procedure has many weaknesses. For example, the system of processing these requests is slow since there are many departments that are in different location that are to handle a specific request. There is also a poor filing mechanism or noting down these requests which means malicious employees in the region could make their own requests.  The manner of handling checks also does not include proper documentation of who has the documents at a specific time. Not only does the system make it vulnerable to lose these checks, but there is a huge lag time which could lead to failure of these checks being processed. Additionally, in as far as these departments are independent; some departments are not quite proactive in looking out at the data entered in the system. Sally’s docket terribly fails in this bit. The case also shows a major weakness in processing of these checks as only one department manually prepares them which leaves room for mistakes occurring.

Expedited Operating Expenditures


            An accounting analysis of the system would reveal there are many departments that are involved in processing these requests. These departments showcase independence which makes it possible to reduce data entry and allowing the corporate department to anticipate its incoming requests. Reconciliation of statement prior to making these processes in as far as it is a weakness also ensures the corporate department analyses the financial position of the company prior to committing to make expenses.


Despite having such a good platform of monitoring operating expenses, Dentistar’s expedited operating expenditures has a huge lag time of addressing these requests. Firstly, these requests have to be processes in offices further away from where they are needed which means the process is not as expediting as one would think as they take a whole month before they are given some level of attention. Secondly, even as these requests are being processed, the filing mechanisms are very poor and there is very little notation of filing. It would have been better if each docket kept files or records of receipt of these documents that are sent to other offices. This would make it possible to monitor the content of specific documents and who had these documents at a certain time. The case also notes that the corporate department of the bank makes reconciliation of specific pending requests prior to them being processed. This ambiguity of processing the requests before they are received and accepted fails to make any accounting sense where all activities must be as a result of specific requests. The report also fails to make note of the existence of specific guidelines that should be used to send these cheques hence probably making the queue to appear long.

Evidence That the Control Weaknesses Have Been Exploited To Commit Fraud

            There are several instances where the case of committing fraud could be noted. One very notable case is on patient’s refund where very few of these transactions were initiated through receipt of letters. Two most notable cases under exhibit G directly relate to Tom Swindler which are as shown in the table titled exhibit G. Tom Swindler works on initiating the action of these cheques and knows all the requirements of developing them. One can only conjecture what would have caused his checks to fail. Could it be that Tom Swindler created these cheques for his personal benefits without consulting other departments for authentication?

Exhibit G  
Check Number Date Amount Payee
1142 12/30/96 192.40 Tom Swindler
2395 8/1/97 200.16 Tom Swindler

Exhibit H shows some of the check stubs that make it suspicious that there are some transactions that could have been fraudulent. This could be explained by the fact some of the GL numbers that were used had different recipient and different transactions purposes. The statements show that transaction would use specific purposes, yet they would u

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
error: Content is protected !!